Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:37:44.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An assessment of laboratory mouse welfare in UK animal units

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

MC Leach  and
DCJ Main
MC Leach*
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Comparative Biology Centre, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK
DCJ Main
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The welfare of conventional stock laboratory mice has been assessed in 46 UK animal units using an expert-defined welfare assessment protocol containing 119 measures of mouse welfare. These were recorded using a questionnaire and observations made during a one-day visit to each unit. The standard of mouse welfare was considered to be good with widespread use of substrate and nesting material and space allowances in most cases well above the minimum recommended levels. Education and training was available and encouraged by the majority of animal units. The health and welfare of laboratory mice was being frequently assessed by animal care staff using daily inspections/observations, health records, and health monitoring schemes. Overall the mice assessed could be considered to be in good health, as indicators of poor health and welfare were exhibited at low levels, and the mice were observed exhibiting a wide range of positive natural behaviours. A number of environmental conditions (humidity, noise and light intensity) were outside recommended ranges in some animal units. The provision of cage resources such as shelters, gnawing material, floor food and other enrichment items were found to be variable. A high proportion of the units surveyed housed at least some of their mice (mainly males) singly and handling of mice by care staff varied between units. In some units there may be an opportunity for some staff to improve in some aspects of mouse handling. Finally, a number of interesting correlations were found between various behaviours and potential indictors of abnormal health or welfare, which require further investigation.

Keywords

animal-based outcome measuresanimal welfareassessmentlaboratory miceresource-input measuresUK animal units
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , May 2008 , pp. 171 - 187
Copyright
© 2008 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Ago, A, Gonda, T, Takechi, M, Takeuchi, T and Kawakami, K 2002 Preferences for paper bedding material of the laboratory mice. Experimental Animals 51: 157–161CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anzaldo, AJ, Harrison, PC, Riskowski, GL, Sebek, LA, Maghirang, R, Stricklin, WR and Gonyou, HW 1995 Behavioural evaluation of spatially enhanced caging for laboratory rats at high density. Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 34: 56–60Google Scholar
Belzung, C and Griebel, G 2001 Measuring normal and pathological anxiety-like behaviour in mice: a review. Behavioural Brain Research 125: 141–149CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blom, HJM, van Tintelen, G, Baumans, V, van den Broek, J and Beynen, AC 1995 Development and application of a preference test system to evaluate housing conditions for laboratory rats. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 279–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brain, PF 1994 Rodents. In: International Workshop on the Accommodation of Laboratory Animals in Accordance with Animal Welfare Requirements. Bundersministerium fur Erahrung, Landwirtschat und Forster, 17-19 May 1993, Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Brainard, CC, Vaughan, MK and Reiter, RJ 1986 Effect of light irradiance and wavelength on the Syrian hamster reproductive system. Endocrinology 119: 648–654CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chmiel, DJ Jr and Noonan, M 1996 Preference of laboratory rats for potentially enriching stimulus objects. Laboratory Animals 30: 97–101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clough, G 1984 Environmental factors in relation to the comfort and well-being of laboratory rats and mice. In: Standards in Laboratory Animal Management pp 7-24 Proceedings of a LASA/UFAW Symposium. UFAW: Wheathampstead, Herts, UKGoogle Scholar
Crippa, L, Gobbi, A, Ceruti, RM, Clifford, CB, Remuzzi, A and Scanziani, E 2000 Ringtail in suckling Munich Wistar fromter rats: A histopathologic study. Comparative Medicine 50: 536–539Google ScholarPubMed
Danneman, PJ, Stein, S and Walshaw, SO 1997 Humane and practical implications of using carbon dioxide mixed with oxygen for anaesthesia or euthanasia on rats. Laboratory Animal Science 47: 376–384Google ScholarPubMed
Farlin, M and Baumans, V 2003 Environmental enrichment for mice, a hammock in the cage. Scandinavian Journal of Laboratory Animal Science 30: 45–46Google Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Milligan, BN 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205Google Scholar
Garcia, AMB, Cardenas, FP and Morato, S 2005 Effect of different illumination levels on rat behaviour in the elevated plus-maze. Physiology & Behavior 85: 265–270CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garner, JP, Dufour, B, Gregg, LE, Weisker, SM and Mench, JA 2004 Social and husbandry factors affecting the prevalence and severity of barbering (‘whisker trimming’) by laboratory mice. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 89: 263–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärtner, K, Büttner, D, Döhler, K, Friedel, R, Lindena, J and Trautschold, I 1980 Stress response of rats to handling and experimental procedures. Laboratory Animals 14: 267–274CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, S and Hurst, JL 1995 The effects of cage cleaning on aggression within groups of male laboratory mice. Animal Behaviour 49: 821 -826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harri, M, Lindblom, J, Malinen, H, Hyttinen, M, Lapveteläinen, T, Eskola, S and Helminen, H 1999 Effect of access to a running wheel on behaviour of C57Bl/6 mice. Laboratory Animal Science 49: 401–405Google Scholar
Hawkins, P 2002 Recognising and Assessing Pain, Suffering and Distress in Laboratory Animals. Research Animals Department, RSPCA: Southwater, UKGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hobbs, BA, Kozubal, W and Nebiar, FF 1997 Evaluation of objects for environmental enrichment of mice. Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 36: 69–71Google ScholarPubMed
Home Office 1989 Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals used in Scientific Procedures. The Stationary Office Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Home Office 1995 Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals in Designated Breeding and Supplying Establishments. The Stationary Office Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Home Office 2001 Review of the ‘Ethical Review Process’ in Establishments Designated Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Stationary Office Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
House of Lords 2002 The House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures 1. The Stationary Office Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Kaliste-Korhonen, E, Eskola, S, Rekila, T and Nevalainen, T 1995 Effects of gnawing material, group size and cage level in rack on Wistar rats. Scandinavian Journal of Laboratory Animal Science 22: 291–299Google Scholar
Kalueff, AV, Minasyan, A, Keisala, T, Shah, ZH and Tuohimaa, P 2006 Hair barbering in mice: Implications for neurobehavioral research. Behavioral Processes 71: 8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kikusui, T, Takeuchi, Y and Mori, Y 2004 Early weaning induces anxiety and aggression in adult mice. Physiology and Behavior 81: 37–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leach, MC, Ambrose, N and Morton, DB 2000 Development of a novel form of mouse cage enrichment. Journal of Animal Welfare Science 3: 81 -93Google Scholar
Leach, MC, Thornton, PD and Main, DCJ 2006 Development of a welfare-benchmarking scheme for laboratory mice. Proceedings of the ninth FELASA Symposium on Internationalisation and Harmonisation of Laboratory Animal Care and Use Issues pp 68-71. 14-17 June 2004, Nantes, FranceGoogle Scholar
Leach, MC, Thornton, PD and Main, DCJ 2008 Identification of appropriate measures for the assessment of laboratory mouse welfare. Animal Welfare 17: 161–170Google Scholar
Main, D and Cartledge, V 2000 Farm assurance schemes. What is the veterinarian's vote? In Practice 22: 335–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, DB and Griffiths, PHM 1985 Guidelines on the recognition of pain, distress, and discomfort in experimental animals and an hypothesis for assessment. The Veterinary Record 116: 43 1–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council 1996 Laboratory animal management: Rodents. National Academy Press: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Nevison, CM, Hurst, JL and Barnard, CJ 1999 Strain-specific effects of cage enrichment in male laboratory mice (Mus musculus). Animal Welfare 8: 361 -379Google Scholar
Olsson, AI and Dahlborn, K 2002 Improving housing conditions for laboratory mice: a review of environmental enrichment. Laboratory Animals 36: 243–270CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parmigiani, S, Palaza, P, Rodgers, J and Ferrari, PF 1999 Selection, evolution of behaviour and animal models in behavioral neuroscience. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 23: 957–970CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rao, GN 1991 Light intensity-associated eye lesions of Fischer 344 rats in long-term studies. Toxicologic Pathology 19: 148–155CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, KL and Rowland, NE 2005 Effect of two types of environmental enrichment for singly housed mice on food intake and weight gain. Laboratory Animal 34: 29–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saibaba, P, Sales, GD, Stodulski, G and Hau, J 1996 Behaviour of rats in their home cages: Daytime variations and effects of routine husbandry procedures analysed by time sampling techniques. Laboratory Animals 30: 13–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sales, GD, Milligan, SR and Khirnykh, K 1999 Sources of sound in the laboratory animal environment: A survey of the sounds produced by procedures and equipment. Animal Welfare 8: 97–115Google Scholar
Sherwin, CM 1996 Preferences of individually housed TO strain laboratory mice for lose substrate or tubes for sleeping. Laboratory Animals 30: 245–251CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherwin, CM 1997 Observations on the prevalence of nestbuilding in non-breeding TO strain mice and their use of two nesting materials. Laboratory Animals 31: 125–132CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, JA and Boyd, KM 1991 Lives in the Balance - the Ethics of Using Animals in Biomedical Research. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sørensen, DB, Ottesen, JL and Hansen, AK 2004 Consequences of enhancing environmental complexity for laboratory rodents - a review with emphasis on the rat. Animal Welfare 13: 193–204Google Scholar
UFAW 1999 The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals, Seventh Edition. Blackwell Science: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
UK Government 2003 The Government Reply to the Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures. The Stationary Office Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
van Loo, PLP, Kruitwagen, CLJJ, van Zutphen, LFM, Koolhaas, JM and Baumans, V 2000 Modulation of aggression in male mice: Influence of cage cleaning regime and scent marks. Animal Welfare 9: 281–295Google Scholar
van Loo, PLP, van der Meer, E, Kruitwagen, CLJJ, Koolhaas, JM, van Zutphen, LFM and Baumans, V 2004 Long-term effects of husbandry procedures on stress-related parameters in male mice of two strains. Laboratory Animals 38: 169–177CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Luijtelaar, G and Coenen, A 1999 Inhalational euthanasia in broiler chickens. World Poultry 15: 40–44Google Scholar
van de Weerd, HA, van den Broek, FAR and Baumans, V 1996 Preference for different types of flooring in two rat strains. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 251 -261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Weerd, HA, van Loo, PLP, van Zutphen, LFM, Koolhaas, JM and Baumans, V 1997 Preferences for nesting material as environmental enrichment for laboratory mice. Laboratory Animals 31: 133–143CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van de Weerd, HA, van Loo, PLP, van Zutphen, LFM, Koolhaas, JM and Baumans, V 1998 Strength of preference for nesting material as environmental enrichment for laboratory mice. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55: 369–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfensohn, S and Lloyd, M 2003 Handbook of Laboratory Animal Management and Welfare, Third Edition. Blackwell Science: Oxford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Würbel, H, Stauffacher, M and von Holst, D 1996 Stereotypies in laboratory mice - Quantitative and qualitative description of the ontogeny of ‘wire-gnawing’ and ‘jumping’ in Zur:ICR and Zur:ICR nu. Ethology 102: 371–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Würbel, H, Chapman, R and Rutland, C 1998 Effect of feed and environmental enrichment on development of stereotypic wire-gnawing in laboratory mice. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 60: 69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Würbel, H and Stauffacher, M 1998 Physical condition at weaning affects exploratory behaviour and stereotypy development in laboratory mice. Behavioural Processes 43: 61 -69CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed